Protestant & Catholic Rapsites I post on

About Me

"The situation did not change in the fourth century.The dispute with the Arians, at least in its early phase, was centered in theexegetical field. The Arians and their supporters produced an impressive arrayof scriptural texts in the defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted torestrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. Their claims hadto be met precisely on this ground. And their exegetical method, the mannor inwhich they handled the text, was much the same as that of earlier dissenters.They were operating with selected proof-texts and without much concern for thetotal context of the revelation.It was imperative for the Orthodox to appeal to themind of the church, to that faith which had been once delivered and thendevoutly kept. This was the main concern and the usual method of Athanasius. TheArians quoted various passages from the scripture to substantiate theircontention that the Savior was a creature. In reply Athanasius invoked the ruleof faith. This was his usual argument: "Let us who possess τον σκοπν της πιστεως(the scope of faith) restore the correct meaning (ορθην τηυ διανοιαν) ofwhat they have wrongly interpreted." Athanasius contended that the correctinterpretation of particular texts was possible only in the total perspective offaith. "what they now allege from the Gospels they explain in an unsoundsense, as we may discover if we take in consideration τον σκοπον της καθ'ημας τους χριστιανους πιστεως (the scope of the faith according to usChristians), and read the scriptures using it (τον σκοπον)(ωσπερ κανονι χρησαμενοι)." On the other hand, close attention must be givenalso to the immediate context and setting of every particular phrase andexpression, and the exact intention of the writer must be carefullyidentified. Writing to Bishop Serapion on the topic of the HolySpirit, Athenasius contends again that the Arians ignored or missed "the scopeof the Divine Scripture" (μη ειδοντες τον σκοπον της Θεικας Γραφης). Theσκοπος was, in the language of Athanasius a close equivalent of what Irenaeusused to denote as νποθεσις - the underlying idea, the true design, theintended meaning. On the other hand, the word σκοπος was a habitual term in theexegetical language of certain philosophical schools, especially Neoplatonism.Exegesis played a great role in the philosophical endeavor of that time, and thequestion of hermeneutical principle had to be raised. Jamblichos was, for one,quite formal on this issue. One had to discover the main point, the basic theme,of the whole treatise under examination, and to keep it in mind at all times.Athanasius could well have been acquainted with the technical use of theterm. It was misleading, he contended, to quote isolated texts and passages,disregarding the total intent of the Holy Writ. It is obviously inaccurate tointerpret Athanasius's use of the term σκοπος as "the general drift" of theScripture. The "scope" of the faith, or of the Scripture, is precisely thecredal core, which is condensed in the rule of faith, as maintained in thechurch and "transmitted from fathers to fathers"; the Arians by contrast had "nofathers" to support their opinions. As John Henry Newman has rightly observed,Athanasius regarded the rule of faith as an ultimate principle ofinterpretation, opposing the "ecclesiastical sense" (την εκκλησιαστικηνδιανοιαν) to the private opinions of the heretics.Time and again in his scrutiny of the Arian arguments,Athanasius would summarize the basic tenets of the Christian faith before goinginto the actual reexamination of the alleged proof-texts; in this way herestored those texts to their proper perspective. H.E.W. Turner has describedthis exegetical manner of Athanasius:against the favorite Arian technique of pressing thegrammatical meaning of a text without regard either to the immediate context orto the wider frame of reference in the teaching of the Bible as a whole, heurges the need to take the general drift of the Church's Faith as a Canon ofinterpretation. The Arians are blind to the wide sweep of Biblical theology andtherefore fail to take into sufficient account the context in which theirproof-texts are set. The sense of scripture must itself be taken as Scripture.This has been taken by an argument from Tradition. Certainly not the intentionof Athanasius himself. For him it represents an appeal from exegesis drunk toexegesis sober, from a myopic insistence upon the grammatical letter to themeaning or intention (σκοπος, χαρακτηρ) of the Bible. It seems that Professor Turner exaggerated the danger.The argument was still strictly scriptural, and in principle Athanasius admittedthe sufficiency of the Scripture, sacred and inspired, for the defense of truth.Scripture had to be interpreted, however, in the context of the living credaltradition under the guidance or control of the rule of faith. This rule was inno sense an extraneous authority which could be imposed on the Holy Writ. It wasthe same apostolic preaching which was written down in the books of the NewTestament, but it was, as it were, this preaching in epitome. Athanasius writesto Bishop Serapion: "Let us look from the beginning at that very tradition,teaching, and faith of the catholic church which the Lord gave (εδωκεν), theapostles preached (εκηρυςαν) and the Fathers preserved (εφυλαςαν). Upon this theChurch is founded. This passage is highly characteristic of Athanasius. Thethree nouns actually coincide: παραδοσις (tradition) from Christ himself,διδασκαλια(teaching) by the apostles, and πιστις (faith) of the catholicchurch. And this is the foundation (θεμελιον) of the church- a sole andsingle foundation. Scripture itself seems to be subsumed and included in thistradition, coming, as it does, from the Lord. In the concluding chapter of hisfirst epistle to Serapion, Athanasius returns once more to the same point: "Inaccordance with the apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from theFathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing to us by traditionfrom the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anythingextraneous to it. What I learned, that have I inscribed (ενεχαραςα), conformablywith the Holy Scripture. On another occasion Athanasius denoted the Scriptureitself an apostolic paradosis. It is characteristic that in the whole discussionwith the Arians no single reference was made to "traditions" in the plural. withthe Arians no single reference was made to "traditions" in the plural. The onlyterm or reference was always "tradition," indeed, the tradition, the apostolictradition, comprising the total and integral content of the apostolic preaching,and summarized in the rule of faith. The unity and solidarity of this traditionwas the main and crucial point in the whole argument.The Purpose of Exegesis and the Rule ofWorship"The apeal to tradition was actually an appeal to themind of the church. It was assumed that the church had the knowledge and theunderstanding of the truth, that is, the meaning of the revelation.Accordingly, the church had both the competence and the authority toproclaim the gospel and to interpret it. This did not imply that the church wasabove the Scripture. She stood by the Scripture but, on the other hand, was notbound by its letter. The ultimate purpose of exegesis and interpretation was toelicit the meaning and the intent of the Holy Writ, or rather themeaning of the revelation, of the Heilsgeschichte. The church had to preachChrist, and not just the Scripture." [1]

[1] pages 104 to 107 by George Florovsky, edited by Daniel B. Clendenin, in the book Eastern Orthodox Theology: A contemporary reader